Slavery and capitalism

Politicians have discovered that slaves are more productive when allowed to choose their own profession, and have that taxed. That does not make it capitalism.
If we stick to Marx’s original meaning of capitalist, it was someone who provided capital (financing) for industry.
This surely means that the capitalist had a choice of who would receive that investment. How could it mean the investor did not?
So, capitalism is freedom.
Compare that to socialism, where the state (assuming the place of society, causing that to whither away) determines everything for you. You have no influence on the policies that control your life (yes, this means that all democracies are socialistic).


Indochinese evidence

For any evidence that the evil that governments pour millions of dollars, lives and tonnes of #CO2 into fighting its owbn messes, one can look at #ISIS, but another example would be the spread of communism. Because both in Africa as well as Asia (in this example: Indochina/Vietnam) the western occupying colonists called themselves capitalists, so when the locals wanted to fight for freedom, they turned to the USSR.
The same is happening in Arabia: #NATO is bombing desperate people into the embrace of IS on a daily basis.

The EU is not a union

I posted on this video:, here’s a copy of one of these posts:

#EU is not a union: in a union, all the parts work together toward a common goal. In the #EnU (European not-Union) countries like the mediterranean ones try to leech off the rest, so that they do not have to implement reforms cut backs. The politicians leech on the austerity measures implemented in northern countries to not have to risk their own re-election making northern citizens pay twice: first for their own austerity policy, then for the austerity policy the soutern politicians are unwilling to impose on their own people that want to continue having their universal #healthcare paid for by people that can’t afford universal healthcare, but instead are forced into costly compulsory health insurance.
So yes: #DownWithEurope!

Funnily enough, the EU is not itself.


Ancoms get off on calling #capitalism #slavery, because in capitalism you have to work for a living or else you die. [because you are a slave to yourself, you are the master in this master slave relationship; sounds quite voluntary to me; and slavery is not voluntary but compulsory labor].
In #socialism/#communism, the food just magically appears on the table, so communism is superior.

Hold on. In communism, food is not grown? (Turns out it’s not; on the orders of Stalin, millions of Ukraynians starved to death, and Kim Yong-Il starved milions of North Koreans to death, because acepting foreign aid would be an admission of incompetence by the state that is the monopolistic supplier of food) because human beings have to put the effort in to grow food, and trust me, the term back-breaking labour was first coined by an exhausted farmer, after a day’s work tilling the field.

In fact: growing food is such hard work, the socialist man that Marx dreamed about (who would do all work free of charge, just to supply his fellow comune-inhabitant with the food he needs, to… well: lazily hang around all day, every day.), If he comes to realise he could do something nicer than break his back day in, day out, namely, do some light weeding in his garden, then do some resting on a lawn chairand work on his tan, and have other farmers break their backs. That would lead to the under-production of food, the fields of crops all going to waste, because they’re not harvested on time. So: starvation ensues. A wise entrepreneur would buy the farm off the farmer’s hands and start producing food the former farmer can buy, without breaking his back. Hold on: that’s capitalism, not glorious socialism.

And because under socialism, the farmer can’t sell his farm to a hungry entrepreneur, because

  • Entrepreneurs don’t exist under socialism (presumably under penalty of years of hard labour)
  • Farms are already the property of everybody, so can not be sold, to people that are better at doing the hard work (doing it harder or smarter, or eventually a combination of both; or hiring staff to help them; automate it)

the only way a socialist state can cause enough food to be grown, is by slave labour.

Looking back, I understand why socialists still adhere to their debunked ideology, and urgently refuse to let go of it; it is so difficult to read a whole, long blog post like this. Especially for an intellectual it is too much asked to follow a logical train of reasoning that goes in the wrong direction (refutation of all that needs to be true)

“Capitalism is slavery!” vs “Socialism is slavery”

Another one from the anarchist fora on Facebook: which is the ideology that depends on (is most responsible for) slavery, capitalism or communism? Since communism is socialism refined to perfection, the two terms can be used interchangeably.
Ancoms keep reverting to “In capitalism, if you don’t work, you die of starvation.”
This makes sense, but does not turn work into slavery.
One argument against it, might be: “In capitalism, you own yourself, so if you wish to go hungry, you go right ahead and spend your money on things other than food. So working for money means you are a slave to nobody but yourself. If you don’t like a particular job, you quit and find something else (not necessarily in that order).
In socialism (not in Marx’s fairy tale version, but in the cold hard reality of life), nobody will work, because it’s more comfortable to sit on the sofa, get over your vodka binge of the previous night. Because initiative is not just not rewarded, but actively oppressed under socialism, there is not much else to do other than get drunk. You get the same amount of goods, whether you do something for them or not. That means there is no stimulus to achieve anything. So all human progress will come to a halt in Marx’s dream world.
Unless the small handful of central planners designs initiatives, which can not be smoothly, naturally introduced by entrepreneurs, but instead have to be forced through with brute violence, putting people to work in “corrective camps” (Gulags), to chop enough wood in the frozen tundra of Siberia for export, to enrich the centrally planning state apparatus. And to build train lines (which cost thousands of lives and hardly get used: no capitalist would waste such amounts of labor, time and money, only a Stalin would do that to punish people for not being perfect commies), to dig up nuclear material to make bombs.
Or speaking of death by starvation: central planning of the whole chain of agricultural production (production of tractors»digging up enough iron ore»planning for the mining industry, which requires people to be fed» planning for the agricultural sector)

Millennials don’t save for the future.

My goodness, such failed understanding of what capitalism is/does can only come from decades of socialism/state-misrule of the country. It is exactly capitalism which will find new ways of extracting more resources/find replacements for those resources, when existing sources become too hard (expensive) to extract them from. The higher price will reduce demand by any but those with the most urgent need.
Until the state’s cronyism (which will exacerbate under socialism) will warp this elegant, natural process by spending tax loot on forcing those with highest needs, down to the bottom of the pile.
PS I use state in the original meaning of nationstate. Not as glorified province as is the American meaning of “state”.

The reason I do fear for the future and hence for retirement pension plans, is because the coming central bank-caused (ie state-caused) financial crisis will wipe out all investments and savings because those savings are in state currencies, which will evaporate, in the manner of the Reichsmark.

Private education should be banned

Quote from a tweet in an email by Tom Woods:

Private schools should be banned. The rich shouldn’t be able to buy their kids a better education. The fact that this *is* a controversial opinion says a lot about our society, to be honest.

The fact that someone can make such a statement says so much more about a society. Bunch of begrudging howler monkeys, the lot of em.

Let’s dissect the statement:

Nobody should be able to get their kids a good education. Just because some people are smart enough to help them make enough money to be able to afford to send their offspring to a school where they will also be made smart enough to become rich enough to, like their parents, send their kids to a good school, etc.

If the public schools would have been better, the private schools would disappear one by one, because there would be no point in sending your kids there.

The rich pay for public schools (via theft), they just don’t send their kids there, so financially, they leave room (foot the tuition) for kids that do go to public school. Instead of being mean to them, activists should thank the rich for that.

So really, what’s actually being argued there, is for the abolition of public schools, because they keep poor people poor, and private schools keep rich families rich. The better solution would certainly be to make the the poor richer by making a better investment in their future, instead of herding the children of all families (rich and poor alike) into public schools, so the poor will stay poor. That is the equality that socialists like Bernie Sanders strive to achieve: everybody should be poor. The only rich should be, well, politicians like Bernie Sanders, who deserve to be rich because they undertake the hard task of micro-managing the country.

Then there the fact that if people wantto send their children to a private school, or not yo sny school at all (because in the public school in their area, the kids only learn to be gang members), that’s their choice, and it shoukd be respected (and paid for by the parents)